Genus Corynebacterium

Warning: In the List of Prokaryotic names with Standing in Nomenclature, an arrow (→) only indicates the sequence of valid publication of names and does not mean that the last name in the sequence must be used (see: Introduction).

Number of species, including synonyms, cited in this file: 132 Number of subspecies, including synonyms, cited in this file: 11

Note: According to Rules 27(3) and 30, this new species is not validly published, because the protologue of the effective publication makes reference to the deposit of the type strain in a single recognized culture collection. However, another recognized culture collection in a different country is cited in the abstract. According to the Judicial Opinion 81, Corynebacterium aurimucosum Yassin et al. 2002 is to be considered to be validly published.References:1 EUZÉBY (J.P.) and TINDALL (B.J.): Status of strains that contravene Rules 27(3) and 30 of the Bacteriological Code. Request for an Opinion. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol., 2004, 54, 293-301.
Original article in IJSEM Online2 JUDICIAL COMMISSION OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE ON SYSTEMATICS OF PROKARYOTES: Status of strains that contravene Rules 27 (3) and 30 of the International Code of Nomenclature of Bacteria. Opinion 81. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol., 2008, 58, 1755-1763.
Opinion 81 in IJSEM Online

Note: According to Rules 27(3) and 30, this new species is not validly published, because the protologue of the effective publication makes reference to the deposit of the type strain in a single recognized culture collection. However, another recognized culture collection in a different country is cited in the abstract. According to the Judicial Opinion 81, Corynebacterium casei Brennan et al. 2001 is to be considered to be validly published.References:1 EUZÉBY (J.P.) and TINDALL (B.J.): Status of strains that contravene Rules 27(3) and 30 of the Bacteriological Code. Request for an Opinion. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol., 2004, 54, 293-301.
Original article in IJSEM Online2 JUDICIAL COMMISSION OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE ON SYSTEMATICS OF PROKARYOTES: Status of strains that contravene Rules 27 (3) and 30 of the International Code of Nomenclature of Bacteria. Opinion 81. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol., 2008, 58, 1755-1763.
Opinion 81 in IJSEM Online

Note: On the Approved Lists of Bacterial Names and on the Approved Lists of Bacterial Names (Amended Edition), the author's name Lanéelle is erroneously cited as Leneelle (sic) in the reference "International Journal of Systematic Bacteriology, 1979, 29, 222-233".
Original article in IJSEM Online

Note:
In the Approved Lists of Bacterial Names, the type strain of Corynebacterium ilicis Mandel et al. 1961 is cited as ATCC 14264 Although it was initially thought that ATCC 14264= DSM 20138 = NCPPB 1228 were derived from a strain that Mandel et al. 1961 considered to be pathogenic on American holly (Ilex opaca), this has proven not to be the case.
Strain ATCC 14264= DSM 20138 = NCPPB 1228 does not exhibit one of the original diagnostic features of Corynebacterium ilicis, namely pathogenesis on American holly, and cannot represent this species. In contrast, Corynebacterium ilicis Mandel et al. 1961, represented by the strain ICMP 2608 = ICPB CI144, is pathogenic for American holly.
Following a Request for an Opinion [1], the Judicial Commission [2] has therefore ruled (i) that ATCC 14264= DSM 20138 = NCPPB 1228 cannot serve as the type of the species Corynebacterium ilicis, but may serve as the type of a different taxon, ¤Arthrobacter ilicis; and (ii) that the name Corynebacterium ilicis Mandel et al. 1961 is represented by the type strain ICMP 2608 = ICPB CI144.
Consequently, (i) Corynebacterium ilicis Mandel et al. 1961 (Approved Lists 1980) is not a homotypic synonym of ¤Arthrobacter ilicis; and (ii) ¤Arthrobacter ilicis must be cited as Arthrobacter ilicis Collins et al. 1982, not as Arthrobacter ilicis (Mandel et al. 1961) Collins et al. 1982, comb. nov.
References:1 YOUNG (J.M.), WATSON (D.R.W.) and DYE (D.W.): Reconsideration of Arthrobacter ilicis (Mandel et al. 1961) Collins et al. 1982 as a plant-pathogenic species. Proposal to emend the authority and description of the species. Request for an Opinion. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol., 2004, 54, 303-305.
Original article in IJSEM Online2 JUDICIAL COMMISSION OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE ON SYSTEMATICS OF PROKARYOTES: Corynebacterium ilicis is typified by ICMP 2608 =ICPB CI144, Arthrobacter ilicis is typified by DSM 20138 =ATCC 14264=NCPPB 1228 and the two are not homotypic synonyms, and clarification of the authorship of these two species. Opinion 87. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol., 2008, 58, 1976-1978.
Opinion 87 in IJSEM Online

Note: The type strain of Corynebacterium lilium is transferred in the species Corynebacterium glutamicum. So, according to Rule 37a, the name Corynebacterium lilium must be changed to Corynebacterium glutamicum.

Note: In the paper by Yassin et al. 2002, the strain NRRL B-24143 is erroneously cited as the type strain of Corynebacterium minutissimum. The strain NRRL B-24143 is the type strain of ¤Corynebacterium aurimucosum.

Note: According to Rules 27(3) and 30, this new species is not validly published, because the protologue of the effective publication makes reference to the deposit of the type strain in a single recognized culture collection. However, another recognized culture collection in a different country is cited in the abstract. According to the Judicial Opinion 81, Corynebacterium mooreparkense Brennan et al. 2001 is to be considered to be validly published.References:1 EUZÉBY (J.P.) and TINDALL (B.J.): Status of strains that contravene Rules 27(3) and 30 of the Bacteriological Code. Request for an Opinion. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol., 2004, 54, 293-301.
Original article in IJSEM Online2 JUDICIAL COMMISSION OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE ON SYSTEMATICS OF PROKARYOTES: Status of strains that contravene Rules 27 (3) and 30 of the International Code of Nomenclature of Bacteria. Opinion 81. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol., 2008, 58, 1755-1763.
Opinion 81 in IJSEM Online

Note: None of the reference strains fits the descriptions in the original publications. It appears that the wrong strains were deposited in Major Culture Collections. This is a substantial case for declaring Corynebacterium striatum a nomen dubium (Rule 56a). However, if a careful search reveals a strain or strains used in the original description agreeing in its characteristics, then a neotype strain can be proposed (Rule 18c).
Reference: COYLE (M.B.), LEONARD (R.B.) and NOWOWIEJSKI (D.J.): Pursuit of the Corynebacterium striatum type strain. Int. J. Syst. Bacteriol., 1993, 43, 848-851.
Original article in IJSEM Online